Subscribe to the Compass feed
Join the Compass Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
EVENT
After the election: what next for centre-left politics?
CAMPAIGN
High Pay Commission
PUBLICATION
The Advertising Effect
THINKPIECE
#60 Responses to Recession
It's time to take back our democracy says Noel Hatch
People say that young people aren't interested in politics, let alone democratic reform. If you asked them whether they were in favour of PR, the first thing that would come to their mind would be spin doctors not proportional representation.
They may not have known before what actually happens in the corridors of power, but they knew their voices weren't being heard, let alone represented. Let's be clear, the expenses crisis didn't create distrust between young people and MPs, it exacerbated it.
Young people don't listen any more to the rhetoric on local community that all parties bang on about, because what they see is supermarkets being allowed to crush any competition from local shops.
They don't listen any more to the rhetoric on fairness when what they see are fat cats bailed out once again lapping up the caviar and champagne from their bonuses, while young people are forced to lap up the rhetoric on the age of austerity and accept pay cuts and job cuts.
And they don't listen any more when faceless MPs who never rebel on our behalf just in case they get pushed off the greasy careerist pole, start rebelling to maintain their juicy perks.
When we get MPs who'd rather get a windfall payout than continue to represent their local constituents, we know that the game's up for the politics of greed and envy.
After all, why should they care about young people, when the only people they need to convince are "swing voters"?
We might not vote as much as other groups, but we'll certainly be voting for the MPs that pledge they will stand up for the issues we care about.
That's why Compass Youth teamed up with Power 2010 to hold a public debate on the change our democracy needs. Because we wanted to enable young people to be able to come together and come up with radical ideas on taking back our democracy. Because the ideas fed in through Power 2010 will go to a citizen's panel selected from across the country. Because the top five ideas will become the pledge that all candidates standing for the next elections will be asked to commit to. So we can see who's really progressive and who supports our politics.
And that's why the most popular idea at our session was to introduce a fairer voting system based on proportional representation. So that's why we are supporting the Vote for a Change campaign too.
So after touring London to film young people with Ed the Duck on what they would do if they were MP for a day, we dressed up as zombies for Halloween marching down Westminster as part of the Vote for a Change campaign.
As Crazy Epic says "Gen Y are politically motivated, politically mobilised, and have the tools to spread their opinions. Events such as Zombie Walk show that they also have the creativity to make themselves heard."
Our democracy deserves better, we deserve better, let's change it.
Noel Hatch, Chair, Compass Youth
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.
Comments
on 17 November 2009, 10:29:09 PM
*********************************************************
The rain reminds us of home, the relentless arin that however large the brim of the hat, still finds a way to trickle down the back of our neck; the rain that steams up an overheated underground carriage, baking the wet morning overcoats that smell like sodden dogs; the rain that chases us into bleak cafes to eat pastries and drink coffee that taste like soap; the rain that isnt like the rain outside our exile windows, refreshing the palm trees rather than drowning the city-sooted sycamores of our home town. But its rain and it tells us that exile changes the way we see and the way we think. For some people, it even makes them imagine that Watneys Red Barrel is beer. But that is Spain and here we know its not.
on 17 November 2009, 9:20:22 PM
Exile does strange things to the mind.Will the rains never come?
on 17 November 2009, 7:30:48 PM
My concern is less that UK British establishment is supporting a racist and reactionary regime in Israel than that the Zionist estabishment is paying to support a reactionary and unrepresentative regime in the UK whichever of the two major parties is technically in power - and at a heavy cost of British lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*************************************************************
Absolutely: this is the core crisis in British politics. We see it in Labour's refusal to confront Obama and the USA for the collapse of Copenhagen, because we are so far up America's bum. Everything, as you say, is for sale. Five minutes of listening to David Miliband is enough to convince anyone that he would take the whole nation out onto the street in a barrow and sell it for a discount price. This is a moral crisis of the greatest profundity, surpassed only by the hypocritical pretense and lies that they decide what they do through pure principle and higher motives. Its not surprising that so many MPs will not be returning, to be replaced by new political punks who will sell their grandmothers for a second-home allowance
Who can blame Israel and the zionist lobby for taking advantage of our moral decline ?
on 17 November 2009, 7:29:41 PM
My concern is less that UK British establishment is supporting a racist and reactionary regime in Israel than that the Zionist estabishment is paying to support a reactionary and unrepresentative regime in the UK whichever of the two major parties is technically in power - and at a heavy cost of British lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*************************************************************
Absolutely: this is the core crisis in British politics. We see it in Labour's refusal to confront Obama and the USA for the collapse of Copenhagen, because we are so far up America's bum. Everything, as you say, is for sale. Five minutes of listening to David Miliband is enough to convince anyone that he would take the whole nation out onto the street in a barrow and sell it for a discount price. This is a moral crisis of the greatest profundity, surpassed only by the hypocritical pretense and lies that they decide what they do through pure principle and higher motives. Its not surprising that so many MPs will not be returning, to be replaced by new political punks who will sell their grandmothers for a second-home allowance
Who can blame Israel and the zionist lobby for taking advantage of our moral decline ?
on 17 November 2009, 5:50:54 PM
"Rather than ordering the poor bloody political infantry to embrace their erstwhile adversaries perhaps we should understand their practical aversions to so doing.If I joined the Liberals (as if!!) I have made a conscious commitment to a certain political approach,and have decided to have no truck with substantial elements of the Labour philosophy of governance.Anything else is Tammany Hall wheeler dealing."
Voting reform is to take account of people who will not be joining each other's parties. Do you think that Libs and Greens and other leftists outside of Labour are going to join Labour now that it is Blue Labour?
Whatever has happened at the local level, the Lib-Dems nationally have often been to the left of Labour as Blue Labour. When they tack to the Right, we know it is because they have had not change from Labour and fear losing the faith of those who voted for them, knowing their political colour, but have gained nothing by doing so.
PR could give the Lib Dems their true colours, will they be Blue for the South or Red for the North?
There need be no Tammany Hall wheeler dealing. One part of ensuring which, is to make sure that your party has good internal democracy, transparency and responsiveness. We've had nothing but wheeler dealing from Blue Labour and they had a strong, ill founded, majority. Behind the scenes there was as much wheeler dealing from the Tories.
on 17 November 2009, 5:10:19 PM
"My concern is less that UK British establishment is supporting a racist and reactionary regime in Israel than that the Zionist estabishment is paying to support a reactionary and unrepresentative regime in the UK whichever of the two major parties is technically in power - and at a heavy cost of British lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan."
My concern is indivisible and both.
on 17 November 2009, 5:08:04 PM
"can we stop playing games and focus on how the welfare state is goiing to be dismantled, what we have to do to extricate ourselves from a disastrous war, how we see the "historic relationship" for all the harm it has caused us, how we take up a positive and constructive role within Europe, how we stop future governments giving our taxes to crooked banks, how we respond to the collapse of Copenhagen, how we take up an honest rather than cowardly position in the Middle East, how we defeat the nuclear lobby, how we prepare ourselves for partnership with China and India, how we guard against any future imperialist wars."
It is difficult for us to have traction on this from outside the electoral system. These are, alike PR, also matters in one way or another Blue Labour has had terms in office to deal with and yet has failed to do so... afraid of those marginals, playing to a so called Middle England. There is not enough time, nor, I hazard a guess, will to handle any of the other important issues before the election. Each is important and each could get lost. PR is stark as an issue and links very well with an issue that should not yet be over and can be a key, but not the whole answer, to how we start tackling those other important problems.
on 17 November 2009, 5:02:38 PM
The problem I see is, simply, the sheer unrepresentaiveness of our political institutions. I suppose my ideal is annual parliaments filled by lottery and with every woman the right to be queen for a day, but, in the meantime, I'll settle for some form of multi-member constituency PR. I think Oborne's TV programme highlghted, once more, how everything seems to be up for sale in Briitish politics and that the political class think this is quite ok as long as the rest of us don't notice.
My concern is less that UK British establishment is supporting a racist and reactionary regime in Israel than that the Zionist estabishment is paying to support a reactionary and unrepresentative regime in the UK whichever of the two major parties is technically in power - and at a heavy cost of British lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
on 17 November 2009, 4:06:06 PM
I asy this because I see no reason to believe that any party supports PR because of the democratic principles PR reflects. The only reason why any politician (or hacks like Toynbee) are supporting it is because of tactical advantage...because it could help them electorally, or because it embarrasess the enemy. That being the case, there is nothing that can be said favourable about some Newlabour politicians supporting it now, compared to Camerin opposing it. If anything, Cameron is being more candid. The campaign is a masterpiece of hypocrisy and casuistry. I dont even believe that those advocating a referendum believe it has the faintest likelihood of happening. So how does all this pretense help us ? All it does is fill the political space with fluff in place of debate about issues that really do matter. I know I will be attacked for taking this position, but honestly, can we stop playing games and focus on how the welfare state is goiing to be dismantled, what we have to do to extricate ourselves from a disastrous war, how we see the "historic relationship" for all the harm it has caused us, how we take up a positive and constructive role within Europe, how we stop future governments giving our taxes to crooked banks, how we respond to the collapse of Copenhagen, how we take up an honest rather than cowardly position in the Middle East, how we defeat the nuclear lobby, how we prepare ourselves for partnership with China and India, how we guard against any future imperialist wars.
on 17 November 2009, 2:41:48 PM
do liberals and labour really answer to the same and/or very similar calls
that the smoke and thunder of local trench warfare obscures and drowns
out?And that a modified voting system will lead to the Blue Labour lion
sporting with the Left Liberal lamb in sunny Arcadian fields?
Devolved Scotland and Wales with PR spawned various Labour\Liberal
deals,not spectacularly inspirational.
Rather than ordering the poor bloody political infantry to embrace their erstwhile adversaries perhaps we should understand their practical aversions to so doing.If I joined the Liberals (as if!!) I have made a conscious commitment to a certain political approach,and have decided to have no truck with substantial elements of the Labour philosophy of governance.Anything else is Tammany Hall wheeler dealing.
on 17 November 2009, 2:04:03 PM
Yes, by all means lets draw continuous attention to the rightwing nature of Cameron/Tory policies. But those whom Jonathon calls ‘progressives;’ and socialists alike, have the particular difficulty that the substance of both Labour and Tory manifestoes will be on a common ground which is further to the Right than we have seen for almost 80 years. Add to that, that after the election it is a racing certainty that whichever party forms the next Gvt, its policies are going to be more economically and socially to the Right than either let on during the election.
To at the same time throw in a generalised referendum on electoral change, without opting for a specific change as a Labour manifesto commitment, and such a course is likely to do more harm to Labour than it does to the Tories. In such a climate the course Jonathon suggests is likely to convey the characteristic image of ‘new labour’ elitism. How that will assist either the aims of electing a Labour Gvt or giving that Gvt the confidence to introduce some form of electoral change, is less than clear.
‘Progressives’ should bear in mind that people are not fools. They know perfectly well that, whoever wins the election, they the majority of the people, are in for it. Therefore, the dominant Right of the Party, (whether or not they are re-branded as ‘progressives,’) need to find such real and tangible differences between Labour and the Tories as may be found, and which will make people want to vote Labour.
The generalised referendum idea, plays into the hands of the Lib Dems as a post general election tactic. Not only does it not help Labour to win, - or at least to maximise the Labour vote, it describes part of the possible scenario in which the Lib Dems will co-operate in the formulation of a Tory Gvt.
on 17 November 2009, 12:53:12 PM
It won't happen will it ? Politicians aren't like that, are they ? Particularly New Labour and Tory politicians.. They won't give up their undemocratic advantage, will they ?
on 17 November 2009, 11:07:40 AM
This would allow people to see the merits of all systems including FPTP (in the first referendum) so that we could all make an informed choice. This would not be the 'rush job' devised to fix 2010 now with a very poor
version of PR by those who have been doing so badly for so long now.
SG 'our' support for Zionism is extremely vile - and does seem to be part of the Westminster consensus that few voters would recognise as part of their wishes when they went to the ballot box. And I don't remember anyone calling for an Imperialist 'foreign policy' - which has again been imposed on us in the form of Afghanistan and Iraq - 'representative democracy' anyone?
on 17 November 2009, 9:42:06 AM
Personally, I would like to see STV introduced. Like you, I’m not convinced that AV would offer sufficient proportionality to achieve what we are trying to achieve – an electoral system which accurately reflects the views and wishes of the electorate.
However, I understand that AV does have its supporters – I wonder if tactically, the sensible direction to go in is to hold a referendum on moving to a proportional system (of any kind) first – then use the space and time a yes vote would provide to closely analyse and debate the merits (or otherwise) of each potential system. With the FPTP V PR question addressed hopefully we can engage in a meaningful debate on appropriate alternatives.
What I wouldn’t like to see is a rush into promoting one system over another which results in some progressives feeling that they cannot support a referendum on PR at all. Maybe we should get over one hurdle with as many of us still on board, before we tackle the next one.
In answer to the question of why we can’t spend the same level of energy attacking the Tories – we can! Doesn’t have to be an either/or situation – PR is just one of a number of issues progressives should be campaigning on and pointing out the right wing Cameron agenda is a vital part of that.
on 16 November 2009, 10:36:07 PM
Having just watched Channel 4's, Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, I'd rather have Cameron and Brown explain why both Conservative MPs and Labour Ministers and MPs find it acceptable to act effectively as agents of a foreign power illegally occupying another people's territory by pandering to the Zionist propensity to, first, commit war crimes and other crimes against humanity and, second, to suggest or hint that, in some way, the highly deliberate crimes committed by the finely tuned, well funded, highly equipped and fully rehearsed Israeli war machie are somehow "proportional" to ANYTHING Hamas (or, less recently, the Lebanese) have the capacity to do, let alone have actually done.
MPs' allowances are one thing, and that's pretty grubby, but the increased centralisation of party management coupled with "policy advice" and funding from such thoroughly dubious sources as the Conservative Friends of israel and the Labour Friends of Israel is a very much grubbier state of affairs. At least Peter Oborne and Channel 4 had the courage to peer under the rock tonight, and that's a start.
on 16 November 2009, 10:12:55 PM
and AV+ ? And both of these are very inadequate, the former for obvious reasons and the latter because it is the worst form of PR giving the most power to the established parties - particularly New Labour!
Why not spend the same energy pointing out how Cameron's policies really will be worse - regardless of voting system?
on 16 November 2009, 9:28:05 PM
An amendment to the Political Positioning and Priorities Statement which asked for Compass to campaign for PR to be implemented in 2010, or for Compass to be involved in some sort of paralell pseudo PR election result was soundly defeated at the AGM on Saturday.
The game in town is a referendum on PR on election day. This would not only belated position Labour on the side of those who seek a different way of doing politics (evidencing action rather than rhetoric), polling suggests that a significant numner of Lib Dem and Labour supporters sould turn out and vote and back Labour if this proposal was on offer. It's the difference between a Tory govenrment and a hung parlament.
Get Cameron on the defensive. Make him explain why the Tories are the Status Quo party in an election where the electorate are demanding a different politics.
on 16 November 2009, 8:26:06 PM
But here is an example of an improvement in contribution:
'I’m by no means a last ditch opponent of STV or electoral change of some other form. If it becomes inevitable so be it. But I do not see in electoral change as such, the progressive properties comrades, (or indeed colleagues,) ascribe.'
'Does Compass want to attract youth support in order that they support the Tories? Does Compass want to attract youth support in order that they be New Labour supporters, social democrats, Old Labour?'
They may want them to be 'social democrats' but that is an extremely contentious concept - particularly now, so what form this would take is unclear. And this would would a compromise that would include former New Labour supporters. Oh and 'communitarians' of course! And this would be dressed up as 'progressives' (which is even more vague than
'social democracy'.
I think you're find that while - literally speaking - you're not stopping others from contributing (how could you!?) you're not being a good ambassador for PR - figuratively speaking of course!
So you really believe there is a chance that a form of PR could be imposed for Spring 2010? And that the right wing press (which you imply has still a very real grip of much of the UK) wouldn't use this for their own propaganda reasons and even kill the campaign off before it had even started?
on 16 November 2009, 6:03:20 PM
Action is needed.
You're back then?
on 16 November 2009, 6:02:22 PM
Is there really no single book? I know that one should not trust in single books, but is there no good general history with suggestions for further reading? Or is it that there is still such a split in opinion that no general views can be arrived at? Perhaps there are three to five books together that can provide a good range of perspectives on what in fact happened and why?
It's nice to know of a decent Christian. I take it you know that no such offer as you suggest will be made?
I will have to look up Mr Roberts.
Please also... why could class pressure inhibit capitalism's facilitation of a green agenda?
Green bourgeoisie: From Lucas to Zac?
Where should one stand on making a profit? What about not-for-profits? Any such thing? Why would a more strongly formed working/socialist class inhibit the settling for a mere profit? Is it that those who might, would then feel forced to siding with reaction?
What do you mean by greater democracy if you don't mean the parliament and thus the government being formed in accordance with actual votes cast?
With PR, I must once again reiterate: Necessary and sufficient conditions. PR is necessary though not necessarily sufficient. Agreed, much needs to happen, but included with which is PR. None of the other things will be easier without PR.
There is also the question of what the Tories will do once in power. They go further than one imagines. One thinks, oh this present lot of so called Labour politicians have been a waste and to get them back again would not be the balm you think, so just concentrating on a likely Tory victory is churlish. But is it: They will go further than you think, but the people will not be pushed to revolution. They will again believe the good life mantra.
on 16 November 2009, 5:48:08 PM
Action is needed.
on 16 November 2009, 5:29:09 PM
"'I am not too precious actually, I am not taking my contributions on here too seriously. '
You don't say!
'Are you really so literal-minded?'
I enjoyed this even more than your usual expresssion of your talent for double standards! Coming from someone who threatened the lawyers!
'I hazard a guess that you are just on here having a laugh.'
and
'but you have just somehow gotten your knickers in a twist.'
You can't have it both ways - you're a liitle bit confused aren't you?
Somewhere in all your rhetoric (and yes I did enjoy your 'assertion' that I'm the one using hyperbole!!!) we do seem to have some agreement that a wider debate is needed - and clearly this is not taking place much at the moment in the UK.
Using the standard of trying promote open debate here - which you keep insisting (the lady doth protest too much?) that you are trying to do - I think you have done very badly. What little debate there was has vansihed and there is a certain irony in you accusing me of being too young (for whatever rhetorical reasons) on a thread about 'young peope' being involved in politics - how tasteful and 'grown up' of you!"
STOP PRESS: Improvements spotted. Improvements spotted.
You do still mistake my clear eye for stress. You perhaps have not considered that you tee up for me to have a shot, which is what I do. Our verbal conflab could not be mistaken for the most part for debate, so of course I do not invest so terribly much in it. Perhaps I am being just a little wicked with you.
I didn't threaten the lawyers, it was your literal-mindedness that suggested I was. I only meant to point out that your introducing the notion of kiddy fiddling is a huge category change and a very serious one and I wondered were you aware of it.
There was no contradiction between your intention to just have a laugh, but then somehow still getting your own knickers in a twist. If true - and I don't know if it is, you intended the one, but ended up with the other.
As for the debate. I am not stopping anybody contributing. So far Dugsie, Lee and Paul have outlined their positions and there has been some suggestion that in fact they are not so far apart, but there is still space, I feel, which they wish to explore. Or, at least, the devil is in the detail and the discussion on the detail proper is yet to begin, at least in earnest.
I don't think I was accusing you of being too young, only that you were coming across as young. There is a kernal of a point though in what you suggest though don't notice suggesting: Does Compass want to attract youth support in order that they support the Tories? Does Compass want to attract youth support in order that they be New Labour supporters, social democrats, Old Labour?
Overall though, your comment seemed a bit better than the others.
on 16 November 2009, 5:27:48 PM
Meanwhile, perhaps SG, or Dugsie, or Jon, or Sane know of a book they could recommend.
Sane, Well I’m sure if Compass were to email my friend via me with such a request he would write a piece for Compass. Confessionally he is a communicant Anglican and is one of those committed Anglo-Catholics who are not odious, misogynistic and rightwing. As a Clause 4 socialist he disagrees profoundly with the position articulated by Philip Blond; and at one and the same time disagrees with PB’s theology. PS in response to an other comment of yours: no not Bacon; more Alan Roberts.
Dugsie, I do not think that capitalism can facilitate a Green agenda, but in its own terms it has no option but to try. In this regard it has particular advantages accruing to it from the dominant neo-liberal economic model with its relative freedom from class pressure from below and a plurality of supportive, competitive elites at the superstructural level.
‘Two historical dynamics are salient here, I think. One is the propensity of capitalism to try to achieve profit maximisation. The other is the imperative of maintaining a world capable of sustaining complex life forms.’
A beautifully stark up sum. It is the second of those dynamics which is losing. The Green bourgeiosie, are divided about profit maximisation. Some stand foresquare with the neo-liberal mainstream in seeing profit maximisation as indispesable to addressing global warming and ecologicial degradiation. Some others will challenge the neo-liberal orthodoxy to the extent that a distinction is emerging between profit maximisation and making a profit. To that extent, this part of the Green bourgeoisie are applying a traditional position of the right-wing of social democracy to contemporary conditions. Arguablly they can afford take this position, because of the relative weakness of socialist and working class organisations.
In the way that you express it, of course STV would facilitate an alliance between those who want a better, (a Good?,) society, and those who want a sustainable world But so too would campaigning for greater democracy, social ownership of those parts of the economy the state owns; so too would questioning the commodification of food production in Africa. In a sense, the list is endless. And if a family are on the breadline in N.E. Glasgow, Leeds Central, or anywhere in Mauritania, some items on the list are more pertinent than are others.
I’m by no means a last ditch opponent of STV or electoral change of some other form. If it becomes inevitable so be it. But I do not see in electoral change as such, the progressive properties comrades, (or indeed colleagues,) ascribe to it.
on 16 November 2009, 5:03:10 PM
You don't say!
'Are you really so literal-minded?'
I enjoyed this even more than your usual expresssion of your talent for double standards! Coming from someone who threatened the lawyers!
'I hazard a guess that you are just on here having a laugh.'
and
'but you have just somehow gotten your knickers in a twist.'
You can't have it both ways - you're a liitle bit confused aren't you?
Somewhere in all your rhetoric (and yes I did enjoy your 'assertion' that I'm the one using hyperbole!!!) we do seem to have some agreement that a wider debate is needed - and clearly this is not taking place much at the moment in the UK.
Using the standard of trying promote open debate here - which you keep insisting (the lady doth protest too much?) that you are trying to do - I think you have done very badly. What little debate there was has vansihed and there is a certain irony in you accusing me of being too young (for whatever rhetorical reasons) on a thread about 'young peope' being involved in politics - how tasteful and 'grown up' of you!
on 16 November 2009, 2:06:23 PM
"Well sue me if it make you feel better (not that you're getting everything out of perspective...) And since I don't know who you are - how can your 'integrity' or reputation be under threat?! You abuse your anonymity and then take offence! Precious aren't you?
The point I'm making is that the majority of voters who are undecided and not bound by part loyalty (or see themselves as 'progressive' and no one outside the centre left even recognises this term) will see through
the 'project' - so you may well end up helping the hated Tories.
But of course you had to presume the contrary - which was so weak a point it could only be reinforced by accusations of 'petulance' etc. And you still can't make your mind up whether you're trying to made serious points or just sneer. (And your failure to decide on which of the many versions of PR is very conspicuous).
And you think you doing a good job!"
Does it do something for you to be having a little roll around and a tussle? Nowt wrong with that lad, but I ought to know as it would explain the lack of debate.
Are you really so literal-minded? Does it handicap you as much as one would presume it does? The trouble with you as that you think you are nice, considered and useful.
I am not too precious actually, I am not taking my contributions on here too seriously. I know that you could well be an okay guy, but you have just somehow gotten your knickers in a twist.
We don't actually know what everybody will do once a campaign for PR had been announced. Part of the Left's weakness lies in all the stay-at-homes and the unwillingness of non-Labour progressives to pool their resources in with Blue Labour. A dramatic chance to really make a big change for this country and one that would very well be for the better, is a different thing to consider than just sad old, tired old, depressed old Blue Labour.
As for deciding between the different versions of PR, you called for a debate between the different versions and I agreed that that is not a bad thing. Though I did also point out that there has been a debate conducted and that we are sadly coming to the end of one portion of it.
As for your use of the term conspicuous, I hazard a guess that you are just on here having a laugh. You're using such deliberate hyperbole and sometimes such a mistaken word that you must be having a laugh.
I don't think I am doing any kind of a job, overall, at all. Is anybody on Compass? I had hoped for more from it. Maybe the people actually working constructively just stay away from here?
Since I know the mere mention of PR winds you up, I shall mention it: PR.
Now over to you for the cod theatrics in return, Jonny Boy...
on 16 November 2009, 11:51:32 AM
The point I'm making is that the majority of voters who are undecided and not bound by part loyalty (or see themselves as 'progressive' and no one outside the centre left even recognises this term) will see through
the 'project' - so you may well end up helping the hated Tories.
But of course you had to presume the contrary - which was so weak a point it could only be reinforced by accusations of 'petulance' etc. And you still can't make your mind up whether you're trying to made serious points or just sneer. (And your failure to decide on which of the many versions of PR is very conspicuous).
And you think you doing a good job!
on 16 November 2009, 11:29:44 AM
"But you don't seem to understand that when I point out how childish your style of debate is - it isn't because it has ' hit the mark' (although isn't it telling that you seem to be so intent on trying to 'achieve' this - do you get your 'kicks' out of playing with 'cub scouts'?) it is just because I have been trying to wade through your sneering to try and address any
serious points you might have had.
There is no way of getting PR (and of course which version?) in for 2010 without it looking like a political fix to keep the Tories out. This debate should have happened back in 1997, so implying that it was on the cards immediately seems wide of the mark to me.
If you mistake someone raising doubts about a consensus that you seem to hold as sacrosanct and then start to throw accusations of others
being inflexible you will look foolish. But I don't mind!"
I am tying you inside and out, answering your points and more; where there is a point to be answered. You have a great game of projecting at your interlocutor what you most fear about yourself e.g. childishness.
As for your substantive points... and you really do push this strongly for somebody who is sangfroid about it all. PR is fair, so no matter when it is suggested and by whom, it is not wrong. If Blue Labour once had it as an electoral promise, albeit in '97, then oddly, if they were to campaign for it now, it would be one thing they had once promised, failed to deliver, but only to redeem themselves later.
As for hitting the mark. I think your petulant remonstrances demonstrate admirably well how I have hit the mark. I don't mean to, to be honest. I think I am just a mirror, really, reflecting your own intolerant inflexibility back at you.
Now the stronger charge that you make, in another context, could be sued for. For my part, my connection of yourself with the ole scouties was not morally low, perhaps reflecting the nightmares from the dark psyche, but was in fact only wondering if you had learned your debate with the scouts as it seemed to be stuck at their level.
As for keeping the Tories out, what a good idea. Are you back focussing with that remark? I hope so, it would be far more constructive if you were.
Does anybody in fact know how many Lib-Dem voters in the South would switch to Blue Labour for PR?
The thing about consensus precious is to give a name to all those in 1983 and then beyond, who did not vote Tory, when if ever there were a chance to vote Tory, you would have done so.
Consensus also suggests the area of agreement, hopefully to be broadened, between Reds, Greens and friendly Oranges. It is to suggest that there remains a good number of us, be we Red, Green or Orange, who really do not want a Tory government. Of course, young lad Jonny, we cannot at this point presume as to what would form the basis of any consensus.
Also, when I critique your points, that is part of the argument. It is what arguments are comprised of. We know this. Your suggestion that anything else is happening was a waste of time and effort. Almost comes across as agit-prop actually.
on 16 November 2009, 10:37:33 AM
serious points you might have had.
There is no way of getting PR (and of course which version?) in for 2010 without it looking like a political fix to keep the Tories out. This debate should have happened back in 1997, so implying that it was on the cards immediately seems wide of the mark to me.
If you mistake someone raising doubts about a consensus that you seem to hold as sacrosanct and then start to throw accusations of others
being inflexible you will look foolish. But I don't mind!
on 16 November 2009, 12:52:14 AM
"Nobody should be excluded from the debate and making the completely unsubstantiated accusation that others want to do this only weakens your argument."
Are you usually this hysterical? This comes across, not a little, like a fit.
"And 'fishing' for 'facts' about me like whether I'm an undergraduate or not (and I'm not) is not only irrelevant but reinforces the impression that you don't feel you can 'win' the argument by relying on the strength of your own opinion."
And on she goes, poor dear. I was not fishing for facts, merely wondering how you arrive at what you arrive at, in such a demonstrative manner.
You luvvie, do not hear my argument, so wrapped are you in hurling at me what you seem to think i gratuitously hurl at you.
"Why do you think I'm so in favour of FPTP - to the point that you have to caricature my point (which you can still read below on the thread)" - yes, we know precious - "by referring to it as 'masochism'?"
Your earlier remarks contra PR seemed not ones made for discussion, but ones telling us poor fools how things stood.
"I have made it clear that I am unconvinced that PR will be a considerable improvement (ie for the majority of the country) and I am very much against the idea of one version of PR being imposed on the nation - without widespread debate. If Labour chooose AV or whatever - and then make it part of a referendum where the only choice is FPTP or AV - then I question how democratic this is."
I have responded to this below. In any case, this point, made very stridently, seems to contradict your earlier point hinting that your support of FPTP is only tepid.
"So what I want is an open and as wide a debate about the merits of all this including internal party democracy."
You did not say this earlier. You have just taken my own words and used them against me. Congratulations, though, on wanting as wide and open a debate as possible. One has been going on and been accessible. Sorry if you missed it. We are now, sadly, in the end days of the debate, at least for the present while.
"But you appear to have made up your mind - and then sought to accuse anyone else who doesn't share your zeal of being in the work of the right etc. And then accuse the same people of being trying to excude debate and other views!"
So i've hit the mark there then?
"If you are 'hitting' anything it seems to be your head against the wall (and for no good reason). There might be a 'left of centre' party in the meaningful future, but it will take a lot of work and a lot more good sense than is being demonstrated by many on the internet at the present! (And I wouldn't start from 'communitarianism' either)."
I am afraid Duckie that in your present state you would not be a part of the work you call for. You don't have cub scout training in agit-prop do you?
on 16 November 2009, 12:41:19 AM
"I would certainly oppose a referendum in which the only options were FPTP or AV. It would be a con. Surely, there should be a wide range of choice. A neutral organisation should be used to provide a range of viable options for debate. A university with specialist psephologists, for example."
Nobody here is talking about Gordon Brown's version of PR.. and after the GE too. It's silly of anybody to suggest that anybody is, since everybody interested in PR was appalled by the suggestion and took what comfort from it as they could. Everybody interested in PR knows that everybody who is interested was appalled.
As for a good debate on the most appropriate from of PR, go for your life. At a simplistic level, which is the one you guys seem to think I operate at, I would have thought that the best form of PR was the one that resulted in the government that best reflected how the votes, nationally, were distributed.
on 16 November 2009, 12:36:44 AM
"My question is "what was the political dynamic" ? Why did the working class and socialist part of the party lose ? Was there no real fight ? If not, why ? Were they seduced or simply outflanked ? All the accounts I have read about the transition fail to address the way in which power shifted, the way it would have been experienced at a membership and local party level. What were the debates about in the working class areas ? What resistence was put up to Blair, if any, and why did it not work ?"
I would be interested in the answer to this too.
From the outside it just looked like Labour collapsed after '92 when they thought at long last they had it in the bag. Blair came across as a winner. Somebody who sounded like southern England after that Welsh windbag. Nobody knew how it would all turn out. After '92, most if not all parts of the Party, or so it seems from the outside, were ready to "try anything" to get into power. But, this is as it seems from the outside, hearing how it was would be interesting.
on 16 November 2009, 12:31:44 AM
"Response to final paragraph tomorrow. I’m off to the pub with a Christian Socialist who supports Clause Four and has a very dim view, politically and theologically, of sometime Compass favourite Philip Blond. And by the way he would be more than happy to write a piece for Compass outlining the reasons why."
This Christian Socialist bloke.. he should do.
on 15 November 2009, 7:32:59 PM
My question is "what was the political dynamic" ? Why did the working class and socialist part of the party lose ? Was there no real fight ? If not, why ? Were they seduced or simply outflanked ? All the accounts I have read about the transition fail to address the way in which power shifted, the way it would have been experienced at a membership and local party level. What were the debates about in the working class areas ? What resistence was put up to Blair, if any, and why did it not work ?
I think you get my drift. If its too tedious to answer this directly, and you have a good source I can look at, I would be grateful. For me, I need to understand something of these dynamics before I feel confident about working out what impact PR would have on Labour. I was struck, as Paul was too, by the amazing sight of the working class Labour faithful getting out the vote in Glasgow NE and then the yoyo announcing it as a wsorking class endorsement of Brown. I hope they take him to a good Glasgow pub and teach him a lesson !!
on 15 November 2009, 6:25:54 PM
on 15 November 2009, 5:57:43 PM
But in the LP there has always been the great contradiction of social democracy: seeking to emancipate and empower the class, or to act in its perceived best interests. For as long as Labour remained predominantly and ideologically reformist socialist, (Clause 4) the contradictions could be accommodated and the Right held in check in such ways as they continued to be usefully socialist.
Changes in the economy and the abandonment of Clause 4, have subjugated the Many and allowed much of the LP middle-class to emerge for themselves alone as neo-liberals, whilst on their own terms improving the subsistence level, (economic, social and cultural,) of a substantial part of the working class. In exchange for this workers are enjoined by Labour neo-liberals to vote for and support ‘new labour.’ The identification of the LP is not so much in decline, as thoroughly split in two.
The Glasgow N.E. bye-election gave particular expression to that split. Enough of the poorest, most ill and deprived members of the working-class voted for Willie Bains; most either could not bring themselves to vote against Labour, or did not vote at all. And yet what was the first thing this new labour hack did? He did not use his victory to apologise to his voters for years of neglect and taking them for granted. He did not seek to begin to make amends or promise a fresh start. He stood up on the backs of working-class people and proclaimed that his victory vindicated Gordon Brown’s policies.
What is that but utter neo-liberal contempt?
Response to final paragraph tomorrow. I’m off to the pub with a Christian Socialist who supports Clause Four and has a very dim view, politically and theologically, of sometime Compass favourite Philip Blond. And by the way he would be more than happy to write a piece for Compass outlining the reasons why.
on 15 November 2009, 3:56:49 PM
Why do you think I'm so in favour of FPTP - to the point that you have to caricature my point (which you can still read below on the thread) by referring to it as 'masochism'?
I have made it clear that I am unconvinced that PR will be a considerable improvement (ie for the majority of the country) and I am very much against the idea of one version of PR being imposed on the nation - without widespread debate. If Labour chooose AV or whatever - and then make it part of a referendum where the only choice is FPTP or AV - then I question how democratic this is.
So what I want is an open and as wide a debate about the merits of all this including internal party democracy. But you appear to have made up your mind - and then sought to accuse anyone else who doesn't share your zeal of being in the work of the right etc. And then accuse the same people of being trying to excude debate and other views!
If you are 'hitting' anything it seems to be your head against the wall (and for no good reason). There might be a 'left of centre' party in the meaningful future, but it will take a lot of work and a lot more good sense than is being demonstrated by many on the internet at the present! (And I wouldn't start from 'communitarianism' either).
on 15 November 2009, 2:49:19 PM
""This by the way, wasn't answered.
'You obviously have decided for everybody that party democracy is never going to return to a left of centre party. ' "
Isn't this statement a bit vague? And as you merely repeated it without trying to develop your point (and I did point out that you're very quick to make assumptions about people's intent) I wonder how serious you really are about serious debate?
As I think it is absurd to use the word 'never' in the way you probably mean it, in relation to politics and the future,I am hardly likely to decide such a general and open ended view for myself, let alone for 'everybody' (which is of course just as ridiculous). There is no left of centre party now - and no immediate sign of one - but to caricature this into your empty statement is just a 'leap of faith' on your part.
But then you couldn't know this - because you don't know me or any of the other posters - so why not stop trying to be so 'knowing' and giving us the 'I've seen all this before...' attitude. Your attempts to 'contol' the debate, by letting your views on how we should debate is, and who is to be congratulated or ticked off is completely facile.
Any serious points you are trying to make are being lost in all the clumsy 'style' you have insisted on."
You must really see me as a threat. You carry on this petty squabble and ignore much of the rest of what I have said.
You also carry on in the manner that you accuse me of carrying on in. You seem to be seeking to exclude me from the debate. And your description of what I say, is not very good.
In as no more a specific term as is often used in these discussions I merely wonder the point of whether party democracy is believed in per se. Some people slag PR for what it is not in the business of achieving, some of which should owe to party democracy. Yet, because you are so negative of anything outside the masochism of FPTP, I wondered if you had even considered party democracy. Perhaps you attack whenever somebody points out something pertinent that you have missed, in order only to divert attention from what you have missed?
So Jon: Do you think there can be/will be a left of centre party worthy of the name? Will/can there be a left of centre party with true internal democracy?
Are you an undergraduate by the way, really impressed with your own understanding of academic forms of debate? Is this how social democracy can be popularised?
I think i hit a nerve? Too close to some sordid truth or another?
on 15 November 2009, 2:35:08 PM
'You obviously have decided for everybody that party democracy is never going to return to a left of centre party. ' "
Isn't this statement a bit vague? And as you merely repeated it without trying to develop your point (and I did point out that you're very quick to make assumptions about people's intent) I wonder how serious you really are about serious debate?
As I think it is absurd to use the word 'never' in the way you probably mean it, in relation to politics and the future,I am hardly likely to decide such a general and open ended view for myself, let alone for 'everybody' (which is of course just as ridiculous). There is no left of centre party now - and no immediate sign of one - but to caricature this into your empty statement is just a 'leap of faith' on your part.
But then you couldn't know this - because you don't know me or any of the other posters - so why not stop trying to be so 'knowing' and giving us the 'I've seen all this before...' attitude. Your attempts to 'contol' the debate, by letting your views on how we should debate is, and who is to be congratulated or ticked off is completely facile.
Any serious points you are trying to make are being lost in all the clumsy 'style' you have insisted on.
on 15 November 2009, 12:44:42 PM
'You obviously have decided for everybody that party democracy is never going to return to a left of centre party. '
on 15 November 2009, 12:43:17 PM
In terms of PR, which Dugsie promotes far better than I do, I must though reiterate once again:
Necessary and sufficient conditions. PR is necessary, but not sufficient.
Nobody thinks that PR is an immediate, direct route to social democracy, let alone socialism. But as Dugsie points out, FPTP is just not democratic. It demoralises voters. It suggests political answers that, often, much of the rest of the population go along with, but are not enamoured of and which, in totality, are quite extreme.
As for elections for the European parliament: It is the European Parliament and so does not benefit from quite the attention/interest that national parliaments/elections receive. As for the centre right parties of Europe, let us remember how those parties of France and Germany are to the left of Conservatives in this country and of the party that has laboured under the name Labour for the past twelve years. Not very far left, no, you'd be right to point that out, but as strongly to the right as British parties either. As for Italy, I don't think it is an example of anything, for anything, but of itself, for itself.
The East Europeans have their hangover from so called Communist days, which still effects much of their world view.
To point out, otherwise, that progressive politics needs to be rebuilt, well, obviously, you are right. But this is something for those on the Left to do. We're agreed on this, aren't we, but nobody suggests a way of going about it? I point out that Compass are trying to do this, but you do not like Compass. I wonder if there is a forum elsewhere and an organisation elsewhere to which are devoted your more substantive and practical efforts toward rebuilding progressive politics. But none of you give any hints of this.
I must again give a cheer for Lee who points out the need to introduce good systems for accountability, openness and democracy in action. I point out that we need a freer press, but yous, who perhaps have been beaten down for too long by the blanket evils of Murdochism and Rothermery do not believe, it seems, that we can have a freer press.
Paul seems to be much more profoundly and doctrinally of the Left. I don't know how helpful this can be; how it can chime with people's sentiment, even any that might be included within a leftist category. Perhaps he lives in the North and there are more people like him around. In the increasingly over-populated and smug South, there is not much like him around. Perhaps this is unfortunate, but it remains the case.
It seems to me that Paul's way serves only to give the Right its victory. I don't know if there is a kind of mannish masochism in trying to fight the tough fight in a system that can so easily go not just against you, but a long way against you. Are you like Francis Bacon in enjoying the beating?
In the real world (the links to which being the source of my sanity, for those asking) the progressive opinion is split. Broadly there are Reds, Greens and, in some cases, Oranges (Yellows, nobody would willing appear as "yellow", "yella", would they?). In a FPTP, they fight against each other. In a FPTP the strength of much opinion can be neglected. You may say fair enough in the case of the BNP, but the case of the BNP instructs. Neglected, it has just grown and spread outside the view of the government and main metropolitan parties. It can also claim to be speaking for those who also find themselves outside of the main metropolitan parties. This is a lot of us, though we aren't all BNP, but a growing number sadly are.
What are the chances of building a single party that CAN represent all shades of progessive opinion and yet still be of a distinctly social democratic variety? Any time soon?
Did anybody go to the Compass Conference yesterday, by the way? I was busy, so I couldn't go. I wondered if some of yous who consider Compass to be irredeemably Blue Labour, whether you went along to Conference to challenge the Compass organisers on this point? If you didn't, what ARE you doing?
on 15 November 2009, 5:27:55 AM
on 14 November 2009, 7:28:19 PM
I see that you are currently under the influence of the Lee ennui.
I'll maybe chat to you when you are feeling better.
*****************************************************************
Neither an especially friendly or constructive contribution; but maybe you are just having a bad day
on 14 November 2009, 7:28:19 PM
I'll maybe chat to you when you are feeling better.
on 14 November 2009, 5:59:04 PM
My old rival comrade, Stan Rosen, used to spaek about a type of political center of gravity in British political affairs, in which, however you begin and whatever you proclaim, everything settles down in the middle. That is probably why PR wont change very much.
I have always been convinced that in many respects, the British population is to the left of the parliaments they vote for. That doesnt mean that they are coherently socialist in a way that would satisfy Paul's definitions, but it does mean that, if they had the power, they would press for things for which a socialist solution is the obvious answer. I would agree with our socialist martian comrade if he were to conclude that without breaking the hegemony that parliament represents, and giving people real power all the time, not just every five years, socialism will never be achieved.
We need to fight for the power for constituencies to recall MPs and other ways to make MPs accountable to their voters, much more than we need to fight for PR. We need to fight that tendency that Stan refers to and that means breaking the strangehold of party organisations and the whip.
In theory we should be on the edge of a huge political opportunity. There are more MPs who are quitting because of the expenses scandal, than has probably ever happened in modern times. But what will prevent this being a real opportunity ? The fact that the voters have no say over whom the parties nominate to take over from the deadbeats they will replace. We are about to discover that the capacity to find new deadbeats to take over from the old, is almost unlimited from the eerie of the political party heights.
Politics is fighting for power. I am all for the kind of organising that Paul and Dugsie frequently discuss, but what is it for ? What are you actually fighting ? How are you fighting ? What is your relationship to the British people who yearn for things they will never be given through the current parliamentary system ? Where is the power, how will you get it, and what will you use it to schieve ?
on 14 November 2009, 4:32:40 PM
I think that you are absolutely right to stress the importance of socialist democratic consciousness in creating a political force which can bring radical change.
An anecdote: I was talking on the phone recently to the secretary of my CLP and expressing my disgust with New Labour and all its works. Disarmingly, he agreed with me and, after all, we had both remained within the Labour Party. A few days later a circular arrived to remind members that we would be concentrating on working in a nearby Labour marginal, not in our own hopeless seat. The candidate there will no doubt be standing on the manifesto of the national Labour Party, which is Blue Labour to the core. No socialist contact with the electorate there then. Of course,there may be a few embarrassed Labour Party socialists explaining to bemused voters on the doorstep that they don't actually support the manifesto and stand for something very different.
We all know that the working class in the UK no longer works mainly in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, with all the implications that this has for political consciousness. The enduring identification of the Labour Party with the working class is still real, but declining. We need to find new ways of building a radical political force and a connection between 'middle class' voters and the reality of their working class lives.
Two historical dynamics are salient here, I think. One is the propensity of capitalism to try to achieve profit maximisation. The other is the imperative of maintaining a world capable of sustaining complex life forms. Can capitalism accommodate a genuinely green agenda ? An alliance between the those who want a better society and those who want a sustainable world would surely be facilitated by STV.
on 14 November 2009, 2:11:01 PM
One of the likely consequences of electoral change at Westminster, (and English local Gvt,) would be that the LP as we know it would cease to exist. That does not necessarily mean that neo-liberalism from above the Compass salt through to Progress and Demos would be left in untroubled charge of the party. In any case, some of this coalition cordially loathes each other. They are an entirely self centred and unappealing lot anyway. PR would change the structure of political parties and their number. As you say the Left is lost in a maze of sectarianism. We could wait and hope that electoral change encourages realignment, honesty and a diminution of sectarianism on the Left. But we should be doing that now, under the current electoral and political dispensation.
But who is the Left? Neo-liberalism here and across the EU and everywhere else, has its own internal Left. Compass for example is currently performing this role in relation to the ‘new labour’ faction of which it is part. On specific issues (like the post office,) they should be applauded on very much the same basis as we applauded Ken Clark and the other 21 Tory MPs who voted against the Iraq war. Saint Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding, the mishandled attempt by Compass to initiate a discussion on Citizens’ Income was commendable. At one level, I don’t give a damn why an important strand of Labour neo-liberalism does this. The important point is that they are doing it.
Assuming there is a reasonably clear distinction between reformist neo-liberals and the reformist/social democratic Left, there has to be some way of putting enough differences aside to build common socialist objectives. If and when that process is underway, it may be possible to work constructively on specific issues on terms of equality and principle with those neo-liberals who market themselves as ‘progressives.’ But the important thing that is not been done, is a concerted effort on the part of socialists across Britain and across the EU to create socialist polices in common.
It would be difficult. Different approaches, (for example,) to the banks and the pathway to a socialist internationalist green economy are not going to be easy to reconcile. But the genuine commitment that all who are Left of the neo-liberal consensus have to social change based on a redistribution of wealth and power, is a compelling starting point.
on 13 November 2009, 7:41:12 PM
I don't 'love' FPTP and as Paul points out many other European countries use versions of PR and none of them are particularly 'social democratic' at the moment, which suggests that so called 'progressive' supporters of PR are overplaying any 'radical' element - especially those most recently converted (to save their careers).
If PR was so popular - then there wouldn't be a need to foist it unwillingly on an indifferent public and don't be too certain about that high turn out in 2010, as Paul says contempt seems very deep for all kinds of political parties. (And it isn't for YOU to decide what is off topic, especially when you insist on making empty assertions like:
'You obviously have decided for everybody that party democracy is never going to return to a left of centre party. '
Maybe it's rhetoric but it's cheap and unsubstantial all the same. If I were you (whoever you are) I would concentrate more on making your case then casually making sweeping statements to little or no effect.
However I expect more barely controlled contempt and clumsy attempts to 'police' the 'debate' ('well said whastisname and bad boy so ans so...)
on 13 November 2009, 7:30:12 PM
'There are reasonably straightforward tactical reasons for those Left of the dominant consensus supporting electoral change. But these reasons are far from a guarantee of socialist and democratic change.'
What is a guarantee of socialist and democratic change Paul ? The Left has been lost in a sectarian maze for years. Where does the exit from this maze begin ?
on 13 November 2009, 7:05:56 PM
Of course it is important that there be a representative and democratic system. Better to have any one of them, or a number of them, (as we have in the UK and in the EU,) than none at all. But fundamentally what matters is how does the Left identify its aims and politically argue its case? If it does these things it will succeed, (of fail for that matter,) regardless of what voting system is in use.
There are reasonably straightforward tactical reasons for those Left of the dominant consensus supporting electoral change. But these reasons are far from a guarantee of socialist and democratic change.
The Glasgow result shows with what contempt the political and cultural elite views the majority of the people; and I suspect that it will be replicated across Britain at the general election. Is it any wonder that 66% of the Glasgow North electorate did not vote?
on 13 November 2009, 6:26:54 PM
Socialist voices are important. LRC MPs led the opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill, for example. I favour a move to STV in multi-member constituencies. This would provide us with a democratic pluralism lacking under the FPTP duopoly. I support a socialist democracy in which democracy is a key defining characteristic of socialism, not just an add-on. Nor should socialist democracy be just a relatively small modification of capitalism. We need to demonstrate the validity of our socialist vision by proposing reforms at all levels of society, particularly the democratisation of our constitution and government.
We do have to win over the majority of our fellow citizens for our project to have any chance of succeeding.
It's very churlish of you Sane not to acknowledge my genius. People need a little recognition in their old age, as Jon understands. I have never been a member of any junior common room either. I was a mature student and declined to become involved in any but the most mature of activities.
On the basis of what evidence do you assert your sanity ?
on 13 November 2009, 5:18:14 PM
Jon:
"Dugsie's post 'Sounded clever...' because it was and he is)."
Not in this he wasn't:
"If they wanted what I want them to want, then they would want it.
The General will is only the will of all when they are willing the best will Jon. All conscious political activists understand this."
We can all join the undergrad common room with this one.
Normally I have been following Dugsie's post with appreciation, but i detected something in this particular one.
Leave a comment